Detention order can encroach on personal liberty and freedom if didn’t have the proper grounds. However if such detention order has justifiable reasons, it is held to be just. This was held in the judgment passed by a two-bench judge comprising HON’BLE JUSTICES: S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, J,, in the matter Sunita Chandrashekhar Kapre V. Commissioner of Police, dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a petition against a detention order issued under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981.
The Petitioner is mother of the detenue who is detained. It has been stated that with a view to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain him under the Act and, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act.
The detenue was served with the said detention order and along with the said detention order, another order of same date was sent, directing the detenue to be detained in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune under the conditions laid down in the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders Order, 1981. The detenue was also served with the communication purportedly issued by Respondent, containing the grounds of detention on the basis of which the detention order was issued, and the documents accompanied with its translation, alleging that the said grounds of detention have been formulated on the basis of said material. Being aggrieved by the said orders as mentioned herein before the petitioner has filed this petition by invoking writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The counsel for petitioner submits that the orders passed by Respondent display complete non application of mind and malafide on the part of the detaining authority. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order entailing his detention under the provisions of the said Act. None of the activities of the detenue, as mentioned in the grounds of detention, can be said to be disturbing the maintenance of public order.
The counsel for respondent submitted that though the detaining authority did not place reliance upon the earlier detention order and offences, however, the criminal history of the detenue is writ large and cannot be ignored.
After hearing both the parties, the Hon’ble Bombay High court dismissed the petition as far as the bail application is concerned it is stated in the reply that to oppose the bail application and to resort an action under preventive detention both are different. In case of Detenue, the sponsoring authority satisfied that the illegal activities of the detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and also danger to the society at large. Therefore, sponsoring authority have no other alternative way except to select the remedy to detain the detenue under the MPDA Act.
